yontherubicon

/r/weekendgunnit ?

I would rather have read a polemic.

The article doesn't necessarily make a claim. It seems to be getting at something akin to: "Science is important so we shouldn't underfund it. We shouldn't kill science funding to pay for Boomer's retirement. It's not the country's fault that the Boomers pushed for massive government deficits and plundered social security, and now they need it."

I'd rather he have just come out and said it.

>Some campus free speech critics, I suspect, aren’t operating in good faith. For them, the entire debate is a way to attack universities as hopelessly and dangerously liberal — to undermine higher education for nakedly partisan reasons.

This is almost assuredly so. However, I find it curious that partisans would seek to attack an institution, unless the institution were itself seen as nonpartisan. And wonder whether there is any truth to that perception. What causes said perception?

I don't think this matters. To my knowledge, much of what would cause the negative social consequences isn't necessarily coming out of the academy, or up for peer review. Instead, it's coming from companies who handle massive amounts of data and aren't submitting their tecnology (in general) as a paper to a peer-review board, but as a product to market. While researchers for these companies can and do publish, the end goal is profit, not publication.

I meant it in the context of the article, where the metaphor was made between a dogshed-builder--a person who can code--and an architect--a person who understands CS and uses it to build things using code.

Appreciate the rec!

So, for the dogshed builders among us, what might be the recommended pathway to learn some architecture--beyond the obvious academic options?

I'm sure this has been covered to death on HN already, but if anyone has a link bookmarked and feels like sharing?

This is oddly enough, a lie.

Read Sexual Sabotage by Judith Reissmann. It's a reframing of Kinseyism and the Sexual Revolution, showing that the sexual statistics on Adultry, Pre-Marital Sex, and Homosexuality which precipitated the Sexual Revolution, were colored by massive selection bias, and motivated by Kinsey's own rather perverse proclivities.

EDIT: I'm not calling you a liar. I'm just saying that the societal narrative that any of the things that you're suggesting were always prevalent is not so. Another book worth reading is A Generation of Sociopaths by Bruce Cannon Gibney. There are statistics on marriage and divorce between the Greatest Generation and the Boomers that are insane. The average GG partner count was 1; the average for Boomers was 15, and has been going down ever since.

Sorry, the outraged "How can we let them get away with this?" tone of the article got to me a bit. I'll try to keep it civil.

Fair enough I suppose. But realistically, aren't corporations organized in a similar manner? You're mostly working with people in your workgroup, then your division. You're not interacting with the whole company, unless you're at the executive level.

In the article, there was a graph that indicated that degrees Interdisciplinary studies were actually increasing.

TBH, I think you've identified the real problem here: Having a degree in the Humanities no longer means a well-rounded educated individual. It simply means a person who can't do math.

I haven't the slightest idea of what "Critical Thinking" is; the term seems more cant of the education decryer than anything else.

However, I will say that the apprehension of works of beauty and the development of abstract thinking patterns with regards to ethics, anthropology, and metaphysics are valuable, for reasons I'm not certain how to articulate. I might only say that I would not wish to live in a world without them, and would consider anyone who--having the means to appreciate them and the requisite intellectual ability--found them simply unnecesary or undesirable, to simply lack som essential form of humanity.

> Ancient Rome may have had a senate, an emperor and a few generals to run the army, but in realty, there wasn’t a single sociopolitical structure larger than a few hundred people, and there really hasn’t been, until after modern times.

> few generals to run the army.

> the army

The army was rather a bit bigger than 1000 people.

I'm in my 20's. I remember the same

> A lot of homeless people are just having a bit of bad luck and a few steps in the right direction will have them be non-homeless people is short order. If you live paycheck to paycheck and then don't have a paycheck anymore then things go bad real quick.

I absolutely sympathize, and I think that safety nets are important insofar as we as a society can guarantee them. However, the library is not the place for that. If someone is homeless and wishes to spend their time reading, then so be it. However, most people are homeless due to mental illness, not lack of jobs. And drug addicts have non-negligible increased rates of criminality and impulsive or violent behavior.

Libraries, as halls of learning, and thus for a people centered around learning, a community center, must be safe.

I am 100% in favor of public libraries, and I think that the ones we have are too ill stocked, particularly in their classics sections. Necessarily, I am in favor of increasing funding.

However, my response to this article was "Let's just get rid of the things." An unsafe library is a useless one.

There are tons of documents relevant to the local community that have no home but the local library, yet might be tremendously valuable for those who have roots there. Libraries are an essential community staple.

Agreed, Library Genesis and IPFS simply haven't advanced that far.

I'd love to see digital archives of all the books ever written, but we're not there yet.

Nevermind the fact that reading a physical book avoids much of the issues with blue light that screens produce

I must say I'm rather dissappointed in the writing quality of someone who purports to be an MFA candidate in Creative NonFiction. Though this may be more the fault of the blogstyle medium than antyhing else.

It is still better than the middle-school level writing of the editorial the author is responding to.

As for the points made therein, I'm a bit disgusted. The library was conceived as a place for anyone to go to elevate himself by learning. It is meant for a kind of public education. It is not a homeless shelter. Miss Oliver's claim that the library must exist to shelter the low detracts from it's original purpose, to educate the young and old.

Furthermore, Miss Oliver's argument, that we should keep the libraries for the homeless and the addicts jettisons the role of the library as a community center. How can one be comfortable leaving their children at a library when 75% of the patrons are current/former addicts and or homeless?

I love libraries. I grew up in them. I don't think Amazon should replace them (though I do think Amazon would do well to sponsor them, utilizing their distribution channels, repository of ebooks, and even publishing library editions via their print-on-demand services). However, Miss Olivers essay is more an argument to end libraries rather than to save them.

I can't say I blame him.

I mean, if I thought someone had written a better book on a subject than I could, I doubt I'd bother writing the book!

Considering the ugliness espoused by "The Art World," I can't imagine that any true artist would want to be anything other than an "Outsider Artist."

Doesn't d.tube only run on one main server, but transmit over ipfs?

Archive link for losers like me who can't get past the paywall: http://archive.is/8mRZ0

I'm guessing he showed a picture or two of his students all posing in the field with a couple turtles, smiling with their find.

And, of course, prudish harridans must have gotten mad at him showing girls in swimsuits and thrown a tantrum.

/e/, the phone for people who want to hide their ecchi, but let people know that they're into 2d.

If you don't know, /e/ is 4chan's ecchi board. Ecchi is softcore japanese cartoon porn.

It might not be that they believe they are the smartest person in the room. It might be that all the cognitive distortions, particularly the 7th one that you bring up, might be precisely because they are, generally speaking, the smartest person in the room.

And it might be because they are, in fact, the smartest sort of people, that they get the most done.

We are of course, only sampling smart people who get stuff done. Smart people who do not get things done tend to be astoundingly good at being unproductive.

Hmmm, I wonder if there might be some evolutionary reason why we shouldn't do this?

I mean it's not like a deferrence to authority allows human beings to coordinate and work together efficiently. Hierarchies are totally inefficient ways to work together and get things done.

/s

EDIT: A paper that is very much worth reading: https://hbr.org/1990/01/in-praise-of-hierarchy

Very real problem. TBH, this is the utility of conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories aren't necessarily useful because they're true. They're useful because the vulnerabilities which are brought up in conspiracy theories often exist in reality, and they need to be accounted for.

Do vaccines contain substances which might be used for social engineering? Probably not, beyond the obvious disease reduction. Might unscrupulous government forces be WILLING to do such a thing, in collaboration with the oft-demonized private corporations? Absolutely. Especially given the recent news that the biannual reports which HHS was supposed to give to congress on the reduction of adverse vaccine effects have not been done since 1987, when they were first mandated. These reports were (presumably) mandated as a condition for allowing drug companies to avoid suits for vaccines. (Solution: easily available independent testing)

Might the telecom companies and USGOV be monitering everything we do electronically, as Alex Jones was telling us? Yeah. Are they? Ofc. (Solution: Encryption)

So if mental health care practitioners wished to intentionally change the behavior of Americans to a more subservient one, might they? Have they? Have not Psychoanalysis and Public Relations been exactly this (see: Century of the Self)? (Solution: IDK)

TBH, we're far better at reducing executive function and impulse control simply by widespread drug usage, pornography usage and (IMHO) highly rewarding, low-attention media, esp social meda, youtube, and video games. All of those are FAR more widespread than playing football, and in aggregate, are far more likely to render one subservient.

I mean, if they did, think about how much greater the risk would be for people like PornHub.

Archive Link: http://archive.is/nmoqk

To get around the paywalls.